• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Roosevelt police kill gunman

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,239
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
1. So you insult me but you don't want that to lead me to be unhappy about that? Gotcha.

2. Who is to say this has little to do with this site.

3. I was thinking more along the lines of why would anybody on OCDO align themselves ("one of own") with someone "wielding a gun erratically", and that OC, as OCDO has traditionally viewed it, is carrying in a holster. Not with emphasis on forum rules as rules, but just that's kinda been the mission for years..

1. A lame attempt to make LEOs look bad. An insult in itself.

2.
You did.

3.
This would be more appropriate at an anti-cop site. The BG was not carrying a well holstered pistol, he was brandishing. Threads like this serve no purpose here other than to inflame others.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Connecting this incident, handgun in hand, to the WA Statehouse incident, LGs in hand (to my knowledge nobody was arrested in the WA incident), is a reiteration of the Op's distaste for those who peaceably exercise their 2A right in a manner distasteful to the OP. The links to the WA thread contain the OP's views on the peaceable carry of LG's depicted in that thread.

You've missed the key point as the discussion has evolved.

Where is the line between peaceable and threatening.

I have ZERO distaste for those who are truly peaceable and respectful of the rights of others in their possession of firearms.

I have little tolerance for those who are unsafe, those who fail to respect the rights of others, and those who are not truly peaceable.

So where is the line drawn and how?

Charles
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Your semi-literate opinions are duly noted, insofar as I can discern them.

I dunno about you, but by this point, I woulda started steering my own thread back towards my original topic.

While defending against criticism is only fair--when it can be defended--I cannot imagine John and Mike maintain this forum just so we can fight with each other.
 
Last edited:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
And, lets not forget that he himself set the tone for his own thread by titling it "Roosevelt Police Kill Gunman". He didn't title the thread, "Roosevelt Police Kill OCer". And, he didn't title the thread, "Roosevelt Police Kill One of Our Own." He titled it, "Roosevelt Police Kill Gunman."

Which tone you seemed to take exception to....right up to the point I questioned whether this was just a case of OC.

Be careful lest you put yourself in the position of the newspaper editor in the middle of a ratings war with his cross-town rival. He declared one day to his staff, "Starting today, whatever the other paper is for, we are against. And whatever they are against, we are for."

Upon hearing this news, his rival chuckled, "Let's see how he responds to our editorial tomorrow opposed to Polio and in favor of childhood literacy." :)

More importantly than present personality conflicts, however, is the opportunity for discussion of where lines are and how we choose to view things. I trust most of us agree that the lifetime ban on possession for "felonies" (especially those without any jail time imposed) are offensive. But does our knowing he was a prohibited person and thus violating laws affect how we view him and his exercise of his "rights" (legally forfeited)?

I trust we all agree that a guy walking up a street with a gun on his hip should not be bothered by police at all. Constitutionally, this should be true anywhere Old Glory is flying. But it must be true in locations like Utah where a properly holstered gun presents no obvious statutory violation.

At what point are fellow citizens and the police justified in questioning or even prohibiting how a gun is carried in public? And does the line move based on whether the conduct is part of announced "OC protest" or is just one guy doing his own thing?

I don't claim to know easy answers to these issues. I do think this case presents an interesting opportunity to discuss them, especially given your and WW's original response, and your seeming change in tone once I made some connections you hadn't previously considered.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
So he was trolling to see who would take his bait?

Only if you consider some food for thought to be trolling.

Methinks we've already seen some interesting examples of how we view very similar objective conduct based on differing context. Nothing necessarily wrong with that as context matters. But it can be enlightening to think about it.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
I dunno about you, but by this point, I woulda started steering my own thread back towards my original topic.

While defending against criticism is only fair--when it can be defended--I cannot imagine John and Mike maintain this forum just so we can fight with each other.

Notably, other than your "+1" of solus' first (insulting) post on the thread, you and I have not been fighting. Not even a lot of overt disagreeing between us that I can see so far. I think we are exchanging some interesting perspective and ideas. If you actually agree with solus that there is nothing interesting about this thread and have no interest in reading what I'm writing on it, the rational course of action is to ignore the thread.

I think it is obvious you have some interest, however.

I don't claim there is any "right" answer to the questions I've asked. My personal views are probably pretty well known: I think a gun in hand in public is cause for citizens to be alarmed and for police to respond and investigate. A gun in holster is not and should not be. A holstered handgun is an exercise of the RKBA. A gun in hand, in public, is reasonably viewed as provocative at least, quite possibly an assault depending on particulars.

But there are those who clearly disagree with me on that point when it comes to certain circumstances who then turn around and want to paint the gun handling in this case very different than in some other cases. I think some are clearly operating from a position of what is often mocked as "feelings".

The point of this thread isn't to be right or prove I was right on the Washington State legislative thread. It is just a vehicle for some thought...for those who enjoy such exercises. Many don't.

All the best.

Charles
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
You've missed the key point as the discussion has evolved.

Where is the line between peaceable and threatening.

I have ZERO distaste for those who are truly peaceable and respectful of the rights of others in their possession of firearms.

I have little tolerance for those who are unsafe, those who fail to respect the rights of others, and those who are not truly peaceable.

So where is the line drawn and how?

Charles

If you wanted to start another WA LG thread you should have, instead of this very sneaky attempt at resurrecting it. You both disregarded the site rules, and insulted the staff, members by your shifty way of trying to derail your own thread to a subject you could not gain any ground on.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
If you wanted to start another WA LG thread you should have, instead of this very sneaky attempt at resurrecting it. You both disregarded the site rules, and insulted the staff, members by your shifty way of trying to derail your own thread to a subject you could not gain any ground on.

Referring to other threads as example cases is not against rules so far as I know. But nice of the guy whose first two posts were brushing up against the rule against bashing of cops to now get very concerned about rules.

And again, I find it fascinating how your response to this incident has changed from blaming the cops initially, based on nothing but someone making a connection between this man and yourself (and the OC community generally). Some are quick to condemn the officers on virtually no evidence, but with no extra evidence are not at all willing to concede the deceased was conducting himself in such a way that they'd want to have his conduct reflect on them.

Perhaps there is a new standard for reserving judgment. Until such time as any of us have enough information to want to be personally associated with the conduct of the "suspect," maybe we should refrain from condemning the conduct of police officers in response to that conduct.

Assuming that neither the citizens nor cops knew this guy was a prohibited person, what is it about his conduct (as reported) that justifies a police response at all? How does his conduct differ from those who handle firearms as part of a rally or protest? Do I gain extra rights by being part of a group? Most would say no.

Do we have to assume there was something about how he was handing his firearm as opposed to simply having it in hand in order to justify any police interaction?

Nothing sneaky in my posting this story or where things have gone.

If it can cause us to examine our views and various inconsistencies in them--however uncomfortable that may be--that is a good thing and far better than endless exchanges of opinions on most any topic.

All the best.

Charles
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
piper, another fine and an prime example of your pontificating is shown by you posting 11 out of the 29 posts on this thread which you started with your opening sentence: quote: So this story has very little to do with this site...unquote.

with the exception of your inappropriate distraction of an initial post, the remainder of your posts on this thread have been spend defending your ego which you perceive has been bruised by others warranted criticism of your activities.

ipse
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
piper, another fine and an prime example of your pontificating

Once again, your semi-literate opinion is duly noted. Do feel free to ignore any threads you don't see value in. But unless you can be far more persuasive to me (or the mods) than you have been thus far, don't presume to shut down threads just because you don't like my "pontificating."

I hate to be the grammar, spelling, or punctuation police. But for the love of comprehension, might you consider using some capitalization where appropriate in your posts?

Charles
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Post #5: I think the most germane topic for this board, at this point, is to contemplate whether any would be willing to chalk this up as an "OC incident." The fellow was openly carrying a firearm... - utbagpiper
Excuse me? When did carrying a handgun in the hand or wielding a handgun (both conditions appear in the article) become OC in the context of OCDO?
...

During the protests at the Washington State capital in January or so.
...
Charles

Connecting this incident, handgun in hand, to the WA Statehouse incident, LGs in hand (to my knowledge nobody was arrested in the WA incident), is a reiteration of the Op's distaste for those who peaceably exercise their 2A right in a manner distasteful to the OP. The links to the WA thread contain the OP's views on the peaceable carry of LG's depicted in that thread.
...
You injected the WA statehouse event and then compare it (those folks) directly to the incident (the perp) in the op. Two distinct and completely different situations.

Those folks in WA were behaving lawfully. They were handling their firearms safely, according to reports/comments from those who were there. I saw nothing in the photo to contradict those reports. Yet, you compare the perp in the op to citizens lawfully and safely handling firearms. You claim his act was OCing.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
You injected the WA statehouse event and then compare it (those folks) directly to the incident (the perp) in the op. Two distinct and completely different situations.

What makes them different?


Those folks in WA were behaving lawfully. They were handling their firearms safely, according to reports/comments from those who were there. I saw nothing in the photo to contradict those reports. Yet, you compare the perp in the op to citizens lawfully and safely handling firearms. You claim his act was OCing.

Who is to say this person in Utah wasn't handling his gun with the same degree of "safety" as the folks in Washington? WW and Citizen made quite clear in their initial posts that we should not trust police reports. SVG has flat out said, "I have learned never to trust what the cops report."

So other than this man's status as a "prohibited person", which law imposing a lifetime ban on RKBA over fairly minor crimes--and if the crime isn't minor, why no jail time???--most here believe is unjust, what makes this NOT a potential case of an OCer being gunned down unjustly by cops?

I continue to be fascinated by what position folks are taking on this.

We can't trust the cops. We believe lifetime loss of RKBA is offensive to our rights. Holding a gun in hand is not a violation of law and good safety practices.

But this guy, THIS guy is definitely not one of our own because we know his conduct was vastly different than what real OCers do at a protest, rally, or simply while increasing public exposure.

Tell me that a gun in hand is not the proper way to legally and safely OC and this guy's conduct instantly becomes highly questionable. But anyone who holds to the position that there is nothing wrong with "OCing" a gun in hand in public is grasping at straws to try to separate this man's conduct--as reported thus far--from conduct that you have vigorously defended in other venues.

In other words, your position is not founded upon objective, observable facts, but merely on feelings of some sort.

Congrats.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Don't feed the trolls...:cool:

Says the guy who happily jumped into the thread to bash on cops, but suddenly reversed course when he realized the pit he was in.

Can't trust the cops....unless someone points out the similarities between a gun in hand on small-town Utah road and a gun in hand at an "OC rally" in the capital of a major State. Now suddenly we are to believe the guy on the small-town Utah road was a deranged lunatic because the cops said so? Classic, really very classic.

It would really be far more mature to simply go silent in quiet contemplation of what this experience might have revealed about the hierarchy of your biases. Instead, you'll lash out at me. Classy, very classy, WalkingWolf; and about the same level of maturity as many of the criminals you dealt with in your career as a cop: the blame always lies with someone else, doesn't it?

Or did you mean that I shouldn't be responding to OC for Me? :)

Charles
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
guess I never fully appreciated eye's saying...do now...

bye bye...

ipse
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Some additional information from police/media

There is an article at KSL in which the investigating police agency reveals that officers were in contact with the deceased man for nearly an hour before he was shot.

Still not enough details to come to any informed opinion about whether the shooting was justified in the moment or whether someone just got impatient or jittery.

Notably, there is even less information as to the reason officers were summoned in the first place. "Acting erratically" is never defined. In a place like Roosevelt, Utah, I'm inclined to hope this was far more than just a MWAG call. But we don't have any information at this point.


Full article at link above (no registration nor fees required to read articles). Some excerpts:

KSL said:
Capt. Tyler Kotter, commander of the State Bureau of Investigation, confirmed Tuesday that there is body-cam video of the officer-involved shooting that left Kevin Vance Norton dead, including footage of the shooting itself.

The captain, however, would not say whether the video shed light on an officer's decision to use deadly force, citing the ongoing nature of the investigation.

"That's the question that we are tasked with finding out: What led up to the change from negotiation to use of force to, ultimately, deadly force?" Kotter said. "That's what we're looking into."

Officers were notified at 12:33 p.m. Sunday that there was an armed man acting erratically near Uintah Basin Medical Center, according to Duchesne County Sheriff's Lt. Jeremy Curry.

The hospital was locked down while Roosevelt police and Duchesne County sheriff's deputies searched for the man. They found Norton in a nearby wooded area at 12:38 p.m. He was armed with a handgun, police said.

"We know from the dispatch logs there was about 50 minutes of interaction between officers and (Norton)," Kotter said, describing a period of negotiation that ended when officers tried to subdue Norton with a Taser and bean-bag rounds fired from a shotgun.

After the negotiations and non-lethal weapons proved unsuccessful, a Roosevelt police officer shot Norton at 1:27 p.m., Curry said. Officers immediately removed a bicycle from the back of patrol truck, loaded Norton into the bed of that truck and drove him to the hospital while an officer performed chest compressions on the wounded man, the lieutenant said.

Charles
 

PeterNSteinmetz

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2014
Messages
177
Location
Tempe, Arizona
Holding a gun in hand is not a violation of law and good safety practices.

But this guy, THIS guy is definitely not one of our own because we know his conduct was vastly different than what real OCers do at a protest, rally, or simply while increasing public exposure.

Isn't it possible that even if this ex-felon was a bad guy and ultimately engaged in behavior which justified the shooting, that his behavior of carrying the gun in hand was peaceful for some time and eventually became threatening and dangerous?

The legal standard here in Arizona for a charge of disorderly conduct would turn on whether such handling is "reckless".

My own opinion would be that merely carrying the gun in hand, provided other safety rules were adhered to, is not reckless.

Now does a gun in hand constitute reasonable articulable suspicion for a stop? That would likely depend on many other aspects of the carrier's behavior.

It does not sound like he was a gun rights activist who would be interested in participating here at OCDO, though may have shared some common behaviors with members here, such as OC'ing a handgun.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Isn't it possible that even if this ex-felon was a bad guy and ultimately engaged in behavior which justified the shooting, that his behavior of carrying the gun in hand was peaceful for some time and eventually became threatening and dangerous?

That is possible, certainly.

The legal standard here in Arizona for a charge of disorderly conduct would turn on whether such handling is "reckless".

In Utah the standard for a DoC charge would include intending to or alarming the public while engaging in tumultuous, or threatening behavior, or if one disobeys the lawful orders of a peace officer; Among other possible conduct.

"(1) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if:
(a) the person refuses to comply with the lawful order of a law enforcement officer to move from a public place, or knowingly creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition, by any act which serves no legitimate purpose; or
(b) intending to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, the person:
(i) engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous, or threatening behavior;.."

The statute specifically exempts the carrying of a holstered or encased firearm:

"(3) The mere carrying or possession of a holstered or encased firearm, whether visible or concealed, without additional behavior or circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe the holstered or encased firearm was carried or possessed with criminal intent, does not constitute a violation of this section. Nothing in this Subsection (3) may limit or prohibit a law enforcement officer from approaching or engaging any person in a voluntary conversation."


My own opinion would be that merely carrying the gun in hand, provided other safety rules were adhered to, is not reckless.

Obviously a gun can be carried in hand without being reckless. I think it is also possible to carry a gun in hand in such a way that a reasonable person would not take alarm.

But I think it is also very possible (and in an urban/sub-urban environment perhaps more likely) for a person to carry a gun in hand in a way that violates basic safety rules and/or gives reasonable men cause for concern. I think as my baseline, I'd say a properly holstered handgun should not be cause for concern in the absence of some other unusual conduct; while a firearm in hand (outside of hunting in the field) is likely to be cause for alarm barring some unusual circumstance.

IOW, I would come down on the side that walking up even a rural road in Utah with a pistol in hand is cause for police to investigate. If a handgun is not immininently needed, it should be in a holster, in a pocket or backpack, or even shoved into a belt. If there is no other reasonable option, I think it should be carried unloaded with the barrel exiting the hand opposite the thumb--carried around the breach/cylinders rather than by the handle. This make clear is it not intended for immediate use. But these are just my opinions.

It does not sound like he was a gun rights activist who would be interested in participating here at OCDO, though may have shared some common behaviors with members here, such as OC'ing a handgun.
[/quote]

Who's to say? And certainly his rights or the propriety (or imprudence as the case may be) of his conduct with firearms do not hinge on whether he considered himself an "activist" or not.

I guess there are a couple of different angles we might take on a case like this.

1-What is it in his conduct that separates him from "legitimate" OCers?

Obviously, his violation of gun laws by having a gun while being prohibited person is the most obvious as we OCers are strict about obeying the law. At the same time, many of us do believe the lifetime ban for felony convictions is unjust....

If the cops did not misbehave, then we must assume something in his conduct was grossly out of line with legitimate OCers as he presented a credible threat to the life and limb of officers who found it necessary to use deadly force.

But if the cops did misbehave--as WW and Citizen alluded in their initial posts--perhaps the deceased did nothing more than refuse an unlawful order while having a gun in hand.

2-What is it that causes some to so quickly condemn the cops involved, but then just as quickly distance themselves from the "victim" of the police misconduct they allege?

I've been fascinated by the responses to this one, and in some cases by the non-responses.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
No, he is not one of "ours". OCDO is about the responsible carry of firearm for self-defense and by extension the larger question of 2A rights, infringement, political action to regain 2A rights, etc.

Wandering around in public with a loaded handgun in hand with its inherent dangers of a negligent discharge wounding or killing an innocent is not responsible carry of a firearm.

Long gun carry is another issue, not the focus of OCDO. However, having missed the WA thread about people racking their long guns and screwing around with loaded mags all in a very public and populated area then building (thanks for the link - I was somewhat stunned by the entire incident) is also not responsible carry of a firearm.

For the record, deepdiver, I agree with you.

Charles
 
Top